Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Yo, homey.
The gig is up.
The data has been cooked and your side lost.
Oddly enough, it really doesn't matter which of the sides "won," since in the end, we all lose as a result.
It's always been about the argument, and they have always been about giving a side to root for, to cheer for, to fight for, to die for, to kill for.
We lost as soon as we started arguing.

Beyond refute right?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Beyond refute right?

I'm not saying there's no truth.
I'm saying their game doesn't include it, although they have some real-nice shiny things that can keep even smart folks distracted.
Time to wake up, people!

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Which one do you want to discuss? You still haven't answered any of my questions. Why does Dr. Spencer think that action on climate change will kill poor people?

"Reasonable accuracy" is statistically insignificant deviation between predictions and observations.

I'm not asking for the definition according to a dictionary. I'm asking for your opinion of reasonable accuracy so I know what you will accept and what you will not. I think you knew that though.
You are just avoiding answering the question so I can't pin you down with proof that meets your personal criteria. If you don't feel comfortable answering the question because it is hard to answer with specificity just say so. I would understand that.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I'm not asking for the definition according to a dictionary. I'm asking for your opinion of reasonable accuracy so I know what you will accept and what you will not. I think you knew that though.
You are just avoiding answering the question so I can't pin you down with proof that meets your personal criteria. If you don't feel comfortable answering the question because it is hard to answer with specificity just say so. I would understand that.

Reread. I did answer the question with specificity.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I'm not saying there's no truth.
I'm saying their game doesn't include it, although they have some real-nice shiny things that can keep even smart folks distracted.
Time to wake up, people!

Who is 'They'?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Who is 'They'?

"They" are the nefarious individuals who manage to fool all of the world's most brilliant people and most distinguished experts, but not a few trailer-dwelling neckbeards.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
"They" are the nefarious individuals who manage to fool all of the world's most brilliant people and most distinguished experts, but not a few trailer-dwelling neckbeards.

Ah, like Donald Trump. Got it.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
"They" are the nefarious individuals who manage to fool all of the world's most brilliant people and most distinguished experts, but not a few trailer-dwelling neckbeards.

What dafuq is a neckbeard?
Do you have anything original?
Have some pride.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
What dafuq is a neckbeard?
Do you have anything original?
Have some pride.

Please talk about science for a change. Explain what you're talking about. Show me a data-driven conclusion.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Please talk about science for a change. Explain what you're talking about. Show me a data-driven conclusion.

"Science: For a Change"
Maybe someone ought to run on that platform.
The last one to use that key word (change) seemed to do pretty well, ambition-wise.

We've been discussing something science related, albeit more how science has been used as a token carried around like an amulet to shield those holding it from any pesky scrutiny or unwanted criticism.
As we more recently have been informed, not only has there been strident opposition to the conclusions by some climate "experts" by others also considered as equally well-versed, but the contentious conclusions were based on exaggerated and highly-inflated numbers... rendering their conclusions invalid.

Between the collusion, the silenced dissent and now the proof of cooking the books, how much more datum do you require?
How much more science do you think it will take to put this puppy to bed?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
"Science: For a Change"
Maybe someone ought to run on that platform.
The last one to use that key word (change) seemed to do pretty well, ambition-wise.

We've been discussing something science related, albeit more how science has been used as a token carried around like an amulet to shield those holding it from any pesky scrutiny or unwanted criticis ...[text shortened]... datum do you require?
How much more science do you think it will take to put this puppy to bed?

Who are "those holding it"? What does "strident opposition" refer to? What are these books you're talking about how are they being cooked? How were the conclusions rendered invalid?

Explain what you're talking about. Use data. Published research.

Metal Brain is clearly coming from a position where he'd decided what the data was before reading the article. Since he proved his own premise was incorrect, I'm trying to steer this back to what the actual data shows.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Who are "those holding it"? What does "strident opposition" refer to? What are these books you're talking about how are they being cooked? How were the conclusions rendered invalid?

Explain what you're talking about.

I am sure I am not the only one that notices he never does. I bet he will never ever give any straight answer to any of those good questions.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Reread. I did answer the question with specificity.

You most certainly did not.
You are simply trying to avoid answering the question, something you dishonestly accused me of doing. You are a hypocrite!

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Who are "those holding it"? What does "strident opposition" refer to? What are these books you're talking about how are they being cooked? How were the conclusions rendered invalid?

Explain what you're talking about. Use data. Published research.

Metal Brain is clearly coming from a position where he'd decided what the data was before reading the ar ...[text shortened]... oved his own premise was incorrect, I'm trying to steer this back to what the actual data shows.

You are a liar!

I never proved my own premise incorrect. You are a pathetic liar!
You always resort to lying after failing to answer good questions in an effort to distract others from your failures. You are pathetic!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are a liar!

I never proved my own premise incorrect. You are a pathetic liar!
You always resort to lying after failing to answer good questions in an effort to distract others from your failures. You are pathetic!

That is your delusion. 67% and 65% consensus was demonstrated in the datasets you presented. You have claimed some level of either "they weren't ALL scientists" or "they didn't ALL respond" but really you are just splitting hairs. Two different datasets with the same conclusion, no datasets with a different conclusion. Objectively speaking, this is non-mythical data.